UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1503

TADEO ELONGO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-906-274)

Submitted:

November 21, 2005

Decided:

December 27, 2005

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank D.

Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Tadeo Elongo, a native and citizen of the Democratic
Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion, pursuant to
8 C.F.R. 1003.1(e)(4) (2005), the immigration judges denial of
his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.

Elongo contends on appeal

that his evidence was sufficient to support his applications for

relief.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for asylum, an alien must show that the evidence he presented was
so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.
478, 483-84 (1992).

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Elongo fails to show that the evidence compels a

result contrary to the immigration judges ruling, as affirmed by
the Board.
Nor can Elongo show that he was entitled to withholding
of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) (2000). Because the burden
of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even
though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who
is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] 1231(b)(3). Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).

- 2 -

Additionally, we find that substantial evidence supports

the finding that Elongo fails to meet the standard for relief under
the

Convention

Against

Torture.

To

obtain

such

relief,

an

applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he

or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal.

8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2) (2005).

We conclude that

Elongo failed to make the requisite showing below.

Therefore, we deny the petition for review.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

- 3 -